Guam Contractors Association et al v. Lynch et al

Filing 59

Order granting 10 Motion to Hold in Abeyance Plaintiffs' 7 Motion to Certify a Class. Since a decision on the merits may render all class certification issues moot, the court further finds that it is in the interests of justice and judicial economy to stay the class certification issue until Defendants' motion to dismiss and any other dispositive motions are resolved. Signed by Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on 7/25/2017. (fad, )

1
2
3
4
5
6
THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM
7
8

CIVIL CASE NO. 16-00075

GUAM CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, et
al.,

9
Plaintiffs,
10
vs.
11
12
13

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney
General of the United States, et al.,

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ RULE 7(B)
MOTION TO HOLD IN ABEYANCE
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CERTIFY A
CLASS

Defendants.

14
15

Before the court is Defendants’ Rule 7(B) Motion to Hold in Abeyance Plaintiffs’ Motion

16

to Certify a Class. See ECF No. 10. For the reasons stated herein, said motion is hereby

17

GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 7) is hereby held in abeyance

18

until the resolution of all dispositive motions before this court.

19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(A) provides that the court must determine

20

whether to certify a class at “an early practicable time after a person sues or is sued as a class

21

representative[.]” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c)(1)(A). Here, the court examines “practicability” within

22

Rule 23(c) in determining whether or not to proceed with class certification at this point in the

23

litigation. The 2003 Amendments explain that the language in subsection (c)(1)(A) was changed

24

from “as soon as practicable” to the current language of “at an early practicable time” because the
Page 1 of 3

1

previous phrase “neither reflect[ed] prevailing practice nor capture[d] the many valid reasons that

2

may justify deferring the initial certification decision.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c)(1)(A) advisory

3

committee notes (2003 Amendments). The advisory committee notes offer examples of “valid

4

reasons” and “other considerations” for deferring class certification decision, to include “[t]he

5

party opposing the class may prefer to win dismissal or summary judgment as to the individual

6

plaintiffs without certification and without binding the class that might have been certified.” Id.

7

In this case, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint

8

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). See ECF No. 30. The court has the

9

discretion to rule on a dispositive motion before it decides the certification issue, provided that it

10

is “practicable to do so and . . . the parties will not suffer significant prejudice[.]” Wright v.

11

Schock, 742 F.2d 541, 543-44 (9th Cir. 1984).

12

Plaintiffs argue that a delayed decision on class certification would significantly prejudice

13

them. See Pl. Opp’n. at 6, ECF No. 15. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that their claims are “similar

14

to the claims of the prisoners necessitating an immediate ruling on class certification in Wade [v.

15

Kirkland]” in that their claims are “inherently transitory” and may be rendered moot should the

16

court grant their requested injunction, meanwhile “. . . every day, new members will be added to

17

the proposed class because Defendants continue to deny H-2B applications at unprecedented

18

rates.” Id. at 7. This case is unlike Wade.

19

In Wade, the Ninth Circuit found a district court in error for postponing a ruling on class

20

certification under circumstances involving “inherently transitory” claims. 118 F.3d 667, 670 (9th

21

Cir. 1997). In that case, the plaintiff brought a class action, “challenging the working conditions

22

of ‘chain gang’ labor at the county jail where he was then housed[.]” Id. at 669. The district court,

23

without discussion, denied the motion for certification, “without prejudice to renewal, as

24

premature should the case survive the motion to dismiss or in the alternative motion for summary
Page 2 of 3

1

judgment[.]” Id. Thereafter, the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants

2

because the plaintiff was transferred, which rendered his claims moot. Id. See also U.S. Parole

3

Commission v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 399 (1980) (recognizing that some claims are “so

4

inherently transitory that the trial court will not have even enough time to rule on a motion for

5

class certification before the proposed representative’s individual interest expires.”).

6

In the present case, as Defendants correctly pointed out, “[i]t is difficult to see how

7

Plaintiffs would be prejudiced if they obtain all of the relief that they seek” in the event the court

8

grants their Motion for Preliminary Injunction in its entirety. See Def. Reply at 6, ECF No. 17.

9

Moreover, the court agrees with Defendants that other putative class members would not be

10

prejudiced because they are not barred from filing their own suit. Id. Thus, the court finds that

11

Plaintiffs will not suffer prejudice if the motion for class certification is held in abeyance.

12

Since a decision on the merits may render all class certification issues moot, the court

13

further finds that it is in the interests of justice and judicial economy to stay the class certification

14

issue until Defendants’ motion to dismiss and any other dispositive motions are resolved.

15

Defendants’ Rule 7(B) Motion to Hold in Abeyance Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify a Class is

16

hereby GRANTED.

17
18
19

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood
Chief Judge
Dated: Jul 25, 2017

20
21
22
23
24
Page 3 of 3